Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “calculating” pump (10). It should be “circulating” pump.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 ends with: “… a perforation rate of 0.0001% to 0.1%”. It is not clear what the term means. The specification also does not provide any elaboration.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation: 1 h to 10 h, and the claim also recites 4 h to 10 h, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Similarly, claim 10 recites the broad recitation: 1 Hz to 1000 Hz, and the claim also recites 10 Hz to 100 Hz, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 10 also recites the broad recitation of vibration amplitude of 0.1 µm to 10 mm, and the claim also recites 0.1 µm to 8 mm, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al (CN 104193853 A) (cited by the Applicants), evidenced by Eswaran et al (20210121846) and Reimers et al (20170088647 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 2 and 5-10, Fan et al disclose a device and a process for synthesizing a homogeneous polymer in the form of spheres first in a polymerization reactor (5) (Paragraph 0015, Fig. 1) (it is similar to the claimed channel pre-polymerization reactor), followed by a stirred polymerization reactor (8) (Paragraph 0015, Fig. 1). There is a vibration generator (2) connected with nozzle (3) (Paragraph 0015, Fig. 1). Fan et al further disclose a water phase circulating system between reactor (5) and reactor (8) (Paragraph 0024, Fig. 1).
Fan et al further disclose adding water phase into the polymerization reactor (5), stirring polymerization kettle (8), starting a conveying pump (9), and maintaining water phase temperature 85-120oC (Paragraph 0024, 0026). Polymerization reaction takes place for about 60 min (Paragraph 0100) maintaining a temperature of about 85-95oC (Paragraph 0101).
Fan et al also disclose, “starting the vibration generator 2, the frequency is 10 to 85 Hz, amplitude is 8. 5 to 18 mm/s, the raw material tank 1 in applying pressure by adjusting the pressure and the valve F1 so that the reactant in the raw material tank 1 (which is the claimed jet oil phase tank) from nozzle 3, the effect of the vibration is dispersed as uniform grain size of the reactant oil dropping, the reactant oil drop under the action of buoyancy, via feed pipe 4 rising into the polymerization reactor (5)” (Paragraph 0027).
Fan et al disclose porous plates situated at the top and bottom of polymerization reactor (5) (Paragraph 0045), having aperture 0.3-0.8 mm in diameter (Paragraph 0046-0047, 0050). Fan et al do not specifically disclose thickness of the porous plates, but it would have been within the ordinary skill in the art to select a proper thickness, including as claimed, because Fan et al use overlapping size of aperture.
Fan et al also disclose starting the polymerization in reactor (5) and continuing in reactor (8) (Paragraph 0040). It indicates that Fan et al are expected to maintain the polymerization conditions for the required period of time, including 4 to 10 hours as claimed (Paragraph 00101).
Fan et al disclose that the oil phase flow rate is adjusted to 3 ml/min reactant in the raw material tank (1) from the nozzle (3) (Paragraph 0080).
Fan et al do not specifically mention about a spiral pre-polymerization channel, however, they adjust valve F10 and create different flow speed in reactor (5) to produce combined effect of gravity, drag force, buoyancy, and the blocking effect of the lower porous plate (Paragraph 0081, 0082, 0100). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use any design including spirals to create proper mixing of the reactants in reactor (5).
This is evidenced by Eswaran et al (20210121846) and Reimers et al (20170088647 A1).
Eswaran discloses a reactor for polymerization process (Title). Eswaran clearly mentions, “The spiral heat exchanger types of reactor can be used alone, in conjunction with one or more spiral heat exchanger types of reactors, and/or in conjunction with other types of reactors such as a CSTR, fluidized bed, loop, slurry and/or tubular reactor in a polymerization system”. (Paragraph 0047).
Similarly, Reimers discloses polymerization using a spiral heat exchanger (Title). Reimers discloses, “In one embodiment, monomer and a catalyst system may enter a reaction zone comprising at least one spiral heat exchanger. As understood herein, the reaction zone may be a reactor. The monomer contacts the catalyst system thereby forming polymer. For example, as shown in FIG. 1A, a stream 1 comprising monomer and a catalyst system enters a reactor 2 and travels through a spiral heat exchanger 3. A stream 4 comprising polymer product, unreacted monomer, and quenched or unquenched catalyst system exits the reactor 2. A stream 5 comprising heat exchange medium flows through the spiral heat exchanger 3. As understood in the art, the at least one spiral heat exchanger includes a body formed by at least one spiral sheet wound to form spirals which are arranged radially around an axis of the spiral heat exchanger. The spirals form at least one flow channel for flow of a heat exchange medium and the spirals may be enclosed by a substantially cylindrical shell, as shown in FIG. 2. Further, the cylindrical shell may include at least one inlet and at least one outlet in fluid communication with the at least one flow channel for providing and removing the heat exchange medium” (Paragraph 0045).
Reimers also discloses that spiral heat exchanger may have an open channel height of 0.5 to 30 feet (Paragraph 0050) and residence time of 15-30 min (Paragraph 0056). Polymer may be produced at a rate of ≧about 2 pounds per hour per gallon of reactor volume (about 240 grams per hour per liter of reactor volume) (Paragraph 0058). Reynolds number of the flow of the monomer, the catalyst system, and polymer is about 0.1 to about 2,200 (Paragraph 0228). This clearly indicates that reactor specifications can easily be determined.
With respect to claims 3 and 4, Fan et al disclose a water phase circulating system comprising circulating pump (9), polymerization kettle (8) which is provided with a screen (claimed filter head) (Paragraph 0015, Fig. 1). Water phase circulating system also shows a device which appears to be a condenser (between F10 and S4, Fig. 1). The presence of screen indicates that the junction of the water phase circulating system within the kettle reactor (8) is located below an operating liquid level as claimed. Screen aperture is expected to be similar to the claimed filter head aperture because Fan et al use a similar feed as the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 110172117 A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREM C SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM (Eastern).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yvonne Eyler can be reached at 571-272-1000. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights